Posted - 2017.02.25 09:04:17 -
[241] - Quote
Let me ask this...did CCP intend for the rise of professional freighter ganking organizations? Well with all their nerfing that is what those dingbats got. Whether they intended it or not.

Here is a hint for dimbulbs like you: when you have a system of spontaneous order and emergence...trying to control it, to direct it...it often blows up in your face.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

I dont lose sleep over ganking either Im simply refuting Dark Pedros incorrect statement that ganking was intended and encoragedearly on in EvE. Devs didnt like it and they initially worked hard to reduce it.

Who gives a **** if it was intended or not. EVE is a game of emergence or spontaneous order--i.e. we will get things nobody intended. That is the goddamned point of the game. To get things nobody intends.

Did CCP intend pipe bombs? Probably not. Did they intend the "false POS" probably not. Did they intend rental empires? Did they intend something like Red Frog? Did they intend coalitions? There are lots of things in game that CCP did not intend...that is the nature of the game.

So your observation is pretty useless...kind of like you.

It was misinformation. Why make **** up?

CCP Fozzie G«£We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-tonG«™ in null sec anomalies. G«£*

I dont lose sleep over ganking either Im simply refuting Dark Pedros incorrect statement that ganking was intended and encoragedearly on in EvE. Devs didnt like it and they initially worked hard to reduce it.

Who gives a **** if it was intended or not. EVE is a game of emergence or spontaneous order--i.e. we will get things nobody intended. That is the goddamned point of the game. To get things nobody intends.

Did CCP intend pipe bombs? Probably not. Did they intend the "false POS" probably not. Did they intend rental empires? Did they intend something like Red Frog? Did they intend coalitions? There are lots of things in game that CCP did not intend...that is the nature of the game.

So your observation is pretty useless...kind of like you.

It was misinformation. Why make **** up?

My point is: who cares? Whether it was intended or not...it is what they got with an open classless system with few rules--i.e. a sandbox.

So maybe they thought it was a bit too much or too easy and they ratcheted up the difficult level...no need to take it past 11 and break the goddamn game. HS content sucks. PVE is boring. HS PvP is all but gone. Mass war decs and freighter ganking and a band of terrorists being subsidized to attack miners. That's it.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

Its clear from the screenshot hes replying to someone whinging about concord being beefed up - hes clearly referring to ganking I

Oveur clearly uses the term "piracy". Even if you interpret his use of piracy to mean all non-consensual PvP, he says CCP intends for piracy to be "not easy" in highsec. He didn't say "impossible" or "not allowed" or whatever you seem to be interpreting that as.

CCP has always intended for PvP, both consensual and non-consensual, to be possible in highsec, as long as you accept the consequences. That has always been how it works and how it was intended to work.

Your version of reality does not exist. Feel free to make the case that non-consensual PvP is currently "too easy" in highsec, but claiming that highsec was intended to be 100% free of non-consensual PvP, even by your beloved CCP Oveur, is a pure fabrication of yours.

Eve has lost over 20 thousand players in the years I have played this game, and it is sad to see.The player base continues to tell CCP that the one thing that drives players away the most is CCP continuing to allow players to suicide kill other players in empire space, with little to no ramifications for their actions, while the players they kill take huge losses.

No one will continue to play under such circumstances, and the drop in population shows it.

Take CCPs position allowing suicide ganking in empire to continue to it's natural conclusion; no one will bother to contribute to the economy because it would just be destroyed, and everyone would sit around and suicide gank each other until there is nothing left.

All CCP has to do is disable people from being able to fire on each other in empire space without a war dec. Very simple, they already have the mechanic in the game - bombs don't work in empire, capitals can't jump to empire, etc. CCP, if you want to attract people to play this game, create a safe space for people to learn and play in safety, and then move out to null sec or take part in war decs when they are ready.

Dust514 is shutting down, your Valkyrie product is not going to have a good reputation either, when your preceeding product is hated by most of the gaming community.

Will the Council try to get across to CCP that the on going state of Eve-Online is glorified gang warfare, disgusting to all civilized people, and must change as outlined above, to continue to survive.

Times have changed, Eve-Online has to change to, or die.

Meh, your post is equivalent to screaming "There's a fire!" at a BBQ. If you can't take the challenge level of this game, I would suggest moving to games like hopscotch and tiddly winks. This game is and (If I have my way) will never be for the 4 button combo instant gratification player. This game involves patience, planning, and persistence so either adapt or die.

Eve has lost over 20 thousand players in the years I have played this game, and it is sad to see.The player base continues to tell CCP that the one thing that drives players away the most is CCP continuing to allow players to suicide kill other players in empire space, with little to no ramifications for their actions, while the players they kill take huge losses.

No one will continue to play under such circumstances, and the drop in population shows it.

Take CCPs position allowing suicide ganking in empire to continue to it's natural conclusion; no one will bother to contribute to the economy because it would just be destroyed, and everyone would sit around and suicide gank each other until there is nothing left.

All CCP has to do is disable people from being able to fire on each other in empire space without a war dec. Very simple, they already have the mechanic in the game - bombs don't work in empire, capitals can't jump to empire, etc. CCP, if you want to attract people to play this game, create a safe space for people to learn and play in safety, and then move out to null sec or take part in war decs when they are ready.

Dust514 is shutting down, your Valkyrie product is not going to have a good reputation either, when your preceeding product is hated by most of the gaming community.

Will the Council try to get across to CCP that the on going state of Eve-Online is glorified gang warfare, disgusting to all civilized people, and must change as outlined above, to continue to survive.

Times have changed, Eve-Online has to change to, or die.

Meh, your post is equivalent to screaming "There's a fire!" at a BBQ. If you can't take the challenge level of this game, I would suggest moving to games like hopscotch and tiddly winks. This game is and (If I have my way) will never be for the 4 button combo instant gratification player. This game involves patience, planning, and persistence so either adapt or die.

Ms GoodyMake does have a point, but I'd argue the cause-and-effect are backwards. There is a huge amount of stuff being produced in game. HUGE. Go look at CCP Quandt's report for January. There was a massive surge in in-game production without a similar surge in destruction.

The decline, IMO, is related to changes to HS along the lines Ms GoodyMake is suggesting--i.e. Ms GoodyMake's suggestions will not help, but will exacerbate the downward slide.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

Posted - 2017.03.05 16:09:43 -
[247] - Quote
While I enjoy ruthless mad play environments, it is also true that I enjoy building and learning.

It is extremely important that players have enough power to be safe in game during early stages. I think CCP is indeed missing a lot of nuance in their analysis of player behavior. It's basic human nature, people shy away from unsafe, even "tough guys".

---LESS NEUTRALITY BUT MORE OPTIONS: (Safe Haven Revamp)

1) Eliminate NPC corporation safe havens. All Players would be placed into faction warfare corporations after one week of gameplay. Unless they join a player Corp.

2) Official Safe Havens: Player corps should be able to pay concord for immunity from wardec as long as they meet certain requirements:*No outposts or citadels can be owned.*No structures anchored.*HQ must be in highsec.*Average character skillpoint under certain threshold.

3*) The above could also be an individual player option. You get immunity in highsec up to a certain age or SP level, if the player chooses to activate this option, and anything up to 1 yr or a certain SP amount above the initial freebie will cost the player some amount of isk. (after that year or SP point, this option will no longer be available.)---

This is just a basic outline for acheiving that kind haven for newbros that could help retention and gameplay. Harrassment that is "not harrassment per the rules" in Eve should be eliminated in highsec in order to make the game more enjoyable at the early, low sp and low knowledge point stages.

Will this make certain griefers upset? Sure. But who cares, be brave and fight someone who is interested.

While I enjoy ruthless mad play environments, it is also true that I enjoy building and learning.

It is extremely important that players have enough power to be safe in game during early stages. I think CCP is indeed missing a lot of nuance in their analysis of player behavior. It's basic human nature, people shy away from unsafe, even "tough guys".

That is what HS is for. It is the safest space in the game, although it is not "safe" in the sense that if people want to and are willing to face the consequences they can still shoot you. People typically move around HS with little or no interference. This notion that ganking, especially of new players, is rampant is completely unsubstantiated bullshit. In fact, I'm going to go so far as to call it a lie. A blatant bald face lie.

Further, CCP has looked at new player ganking and here are the findings:

1. It is rare. About 1% of players are suicide ganked in their 15 days.2. Those who are suicide ganked or even killed legally they tend to play longer than those not ganked at all.

Bottom line is that ganking, of new players is both rare and not detrimental.

I know many will try and trash the analysis, but please don't I'm tired of taking apart idiotic arguments from boneheads who know ****-from-shinola when it comes to statistics. For example, this was not a mother fecking survey. If you start talking about a survey you are a moron. If you think 80,000 is too small, you are a moron. If you think that debunking the analysis--i.e. some how coming up with a valid criticism of the analysis makes suicide ganking an issue for new players you are a moron.

Darth Magic wrote:

---LESS NEUTRALITY BUT MORE OPTIONS: (Safe Haven Revamp)

1) Eliminate NPC corporation safe havens. All Players would be placed into faction warfare corporations after one week of gameplay. Unless they join a player Corp.

2) Official Safe Havens: Player corps should be able to pay concord for immunity from wardec as long as they meet certain requirements:*No outposts or citadels can be owned.*No structures anchored.*HQ must be in highsec.*Average character skillpoint under certain threshold.

3*) The above could also be an individual player option. You get immunity in highsec up to a certain age or SP level, if the player chooses to activate this option, and anything up to 1 yr or a certain SP amount above the initial freebie will cost the player some amount of isk. (after that year or SP point, this option will no longer be available.)---

This is just a basic outline for acheiving that kind haven for newbros that could help retention and gameplay. Harrassment that is "not harrassment per the rules" in Eve should be eliminated in highsec in order to make the game more enjoyable at the early, low sp and low knowledge point stages.

Will this make certain griefers upset? Sure. But who cares, be brave and fight someone who is interested.

There are safe havens in the game, they are called starter systems. CCP takes a dim view of certain activities directed at new players in those systems. Engage in those activities after being warned off you will, in all likelihood, be banned.

Another place where you can go and avoid PvP is the test server. IIRC, there are designated PvP zones, but the rest of the systems are not--i.e. no PvP unless you consent.

And considering the analysis by CCP this notion of "safe havens" is exactly the wrong approach. It is the wrong approach because people who avoid PvP and player interaction in general....they tend to leave the game sooner than later. You have it backwards.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

While I enjoy ruthless mad play environments, it is also true that I enjoy building and learning.

It is extremely important that players have enough power to be safe in game during early stages. I think CCP is indeed missing a lot of nuance in their analysis of player behavior. It's basic human nature, people shy away from unsafe, even "tough guys".

That is what HS is for. It is the safest space in the game, although it is not "safe" in the sense that if people want to and are willing to face the consequences they can still shoot you. People typically move around HS with little or no interference. This notion that ganking, especially of new players, is rampant is completely unsubstantiated bullshit. In fact, I'm going to go so far as to call it a lie. A blatant bald face lie.

Further, CCP has looked at new player ganking and here are the findings:

1. It is rare. About 1% of players are suicide ganked in their 15 days.2. Those who are suicide ganked or even killed legally they tend to play longer than those not ganked at all.

Bottom line is that ganking, of new players is both rare and not detrimental.

I know many will try and trash the analysis, but please don't I'm tired of taking apart idiotic arguments from boneheads who know ****-from-shinola when it comes to statistics. For example, this was not a mother fecking survey. If you start talking about a survey you are a moron. If you think 80,000 is too small, you are a moron. If you think that debunking the analysis--i.e. some how coming up with a valid criticism of the analysis makes suicide ganking an issue for new players you are a moron.

Darth Magic wrote:

---LESS NEUTRALITY BUT MORE OPTIONS: (Safe Haven Revamp)

1) Eliminate NPC corporation safe havens. All Players would be placed into faction warfare corporations after one week of gameplay. Unless they join a player Corp.

2) Official Safe Havens: Player corps should be able to pay concord for immunity from wardec as long as they meet certain requirements:*No outposts or citadels can be owned.*No structures anchored.*HQ must be in highsec.*Average character skillpoint under certain threshold.

3*) The above could also be an individual player option. You get immunity in highsec up to a certain age or SP level, if the player chooses to activate this option, and anything up to 1 yr or a certain SP amount above the initial freebie will cost the player some amount of isk. (after that year or SP point, this option will no longer be available.)---

This is just a basic outline for acheiving that kind haven for newbros that could help retention and gameplay. Harrassment that is "not harrassment per the rules" in Eve should be eliminated in highsec in order to make the game more enjoyable at the early, low sp and low knowledge point stages.

Will this make certain griefers upset? Sure. But who cares, be brave and fight someone who is interested.

There are safe havens in the game, they are called starter systems. CCP takes a dim view of certain activities directed at new players in those systems. Engage in those activities after being warned off you will, in all likelihood, be banned.

Another place where you can go and avoid PvP is the test server. IIRC, there are designated PvP zones, but the rest of the systems are not--i.e. no PvP unless you consent.

And considering the analysis by CCP this notion of "safe havens" is exactly the wrong approach. It is the wrong approach because people who avoid PvP and player interaction in general....they tend to leave the game sooner than later. You have it backwards.

The video refers to an analysis of players under 15 days old. Enough said, your point is garbage. That's not where the ganking metagame is even played.

You somehow think there is a problem with people not being save in the early stages of gameplay. Takos showed you an analysis which basically concludes that people who get blown up are more likely to join. This is very relevant.

I'm not sure why people like you think isolating players for weeks or months from the real game is somehow something a real new player is looking for. Most of them probably get drawn to EVE because the hear about those epic universe shaping battles and not because they think it's an awesome game to mine in perfect safety. So why are you trying to keep them out of the real game?

The video refers to an analysis of players under 15 days old. Enough said, your point is garbage. That's not where the ganking metagame is even played.

Yes, new players. And the point still stands, those who are suicide ganked or even killed legally in their first 15 days stay longer than those who are not.

Darth Magic wrote:

Anyway, back to the real point. My target is not the Ganking meta game here. If you read my proposal, it's clear that I'm referring to a new way of entering PvP and new way to give players control.

This is a sandbox, a game of spontaneous order and emergence. The idea is that CCP does not control how people enter into PvP. Nor do the players always have control over this. That is the fundamental nature of the game.

Quote:

There is a sweet spot for Players who are finally getting it and starting to do new things. They begin to fly better ships and barges and exhumers and so on. There's a point of frustration where their rewards are not sufficiently high for their efforts. There's also a disconnect in the early stages from players and NPC corporations.

This is why I propose all players be forced into a type of faction warfare early on, forcing them to go player corps is that's not their thing. But also my idea is about enabling players who truly need safer learning environments to be immune from attack in early stages provided they pay the price.

I am for a significant revamp of FW also. As it is currently, it sucks and it's not attractive.

Sorry, but there is no nice way to say this....

You are coming of as an "expert" who knows what is best for everyone and you'll force everyone to do what you want because you know best...for everyone. Sorry, but I don't accept that view. I find it a view of unbelievable hubris. My view is let players explore the game and learn it as they see fit...not forcing them all into a one-size fits all experience.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

Posted - 2017.03.07 02:04:00 -
[252] - Quote
ok, i will not try to argue whether i think sucide ganking or the actions of Bumbing intill your fleet comes along is allowed or not. i am not good with words and PV players will always argue, and CCP wants PVP actions. it is Simple. Have a 100% Vote in both Alpha and Omega accounts. 100% of the accounts for a 30 Day period. even give some type of award for voteing. and when you give the answer of who voted on what. give the answer of how many % voted based on how many total accutally voted, not how many total accounts polay eve. but ask all the accounts during that 30 nday period, ask how many players think succide ganking showed be allowed. Period. put it up to the player base. and since CCP claims that this is a PVP Game. then the PVP should vote and win. I petrsonally dont think Succide Ganking should be allowed. What % of the Total accounts on the record for a 30 day period. How many accounts want succide ganking not to be legal. of course we are going to argue whether it will be total accounts, one per account to be allowed to vote or one per real person (no matter how many accounts per that person) ius allowe3d to vote. that is another arguement all together. and if some one want to try to put this in a better describale way, go for it. i will eve read it again and tell ya if that is what I mean to say.

thanks for reading this, and hopefully it will be treated with seriouness.

ok, i will not try to argue whether i think sucide ganking or the actions of Bumbing intill your fleet comes along is allowed or not. i am not good with words and PV players will always argue, and CCP wants PVP actions. it is Simple. Have a 100% Vote in both Alpha and Omega accounts. 100% of the accounts for a 30 Day period. even give some type of award for voteing. and when you give the answer of who voted on what. give the answer of how many % voted based on how many total accutally voted, not how many total accounts polay eve. but ask all the accounts during that 30 nday period, ask how many players think succide ganking showed be allowed. Period. put it up to the player base. and since CCP claims that this is a PVP Game. then the PVP should vote and win. I petrsonally dont think Succide Ganking should be allowed. What % of the Total accounts on the record for a 30 day period. How many accounts want succide ganking not to be legal. of course we are going to argue whether it will be total accounts, one per account to be allowed to vote or one per real person (no matter how many accounts per that person) ius allowe3d to vote. that is another arguement all together. and if some one want to try to put this in a better describale way, go for it. i will eve read it again and tell ya if that is what I mean to say.

thanks for reading this, and hopefully it will be treated with seriouness.

First off voting sucks. It is a terrible way to make decisions. There is nothing to say that voting will give a "good" outcome. There have been a number of people who have looked at this (link, link, link, link). Voting should be analyzed via game theory and one thing about game theory is that the optimal outcomes are never ensured. So even if the truly optimal answer is "more suicide ganking" there is no mechanism in voting to ensure this is the outcome.

Second many people who are the subject of suicide ganking have literally zero awareness of what is going on in the wider game. None. Even when Burn Jita is announced weeks ahead, even when people are sitting 1, 2, or 3 jumps from systems where ganks happen...here come the freighters, fat, dumb and often full of loot.

More over, even if the vote is: more suicide ganking, that will do nothing to stop the whiners. They'll be back here whining about how so-and-so was dumb and foolish and put 8 billion ISK in his freighter and clicked undock and flew through Uedama without a scout.

Additionally, the idea of voting and imposing a top down solution is antithetical to the philosophy of the game. This is a game that is an open, classless game--i.e. a sandbox. Players drive the game. If suicide ganking is an issue...players should find the solution. Don't overload your freighter, don't autopillock, use a scout, tank your freighter, use a webber, use standings, use local, stop being a doormat and letting everyone walk all over you. Jump in a combat ship with some friends and gank the bumping macherial. Use your combat ships to try and shoot the gankers, many of whom are -5 or lower in terms of security status. If they have kill rights activate those and shoot them.

Nope, by all means lets vote and remove all that potential content.

One last thing, GTFO. Welcome to New Eden.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

ok, i will not try to argue whether i think sucide ganking or the actions of Bumbing intill your fleet comes along is allowed or not. i am not good with words and PV players will always argue, and CCP wants PVP actions. it is Simple. Have a 100% Vote in both Alpha and Omega accounts. 100% of the accounts for a 30 Day period. even give some type of award for voteing. and when you give the answer of who voted on what. give the answer of how many % voted based on how many total accutally voted, not how many total accounts polay eve. but ask all the accounts during that 30 nday period, ask how many players think succide ganking showed be allowed. Period. put it up to the player base. and since CCP claims that this is a PVP Game. then the PVP should vote and win. I petrsonally dont think Succide Ganking should be allowed. What % of the Total accounts on the record for a 30 day period. How many accounts want succide ganking not to be legal. of course we are going to argue whether it will be total accounts, one per account to be allowed to vote or one per real person (no matter how many accounts per that person) ius allowe3d to vote. that is another arguement all together. and if some one want to try to put this in a better describale way, go for it. i will eve read it again and tell ya if that is what I mean to say.

thanks for reading this, and hopefully it will be treated with seriouness.

Its a given it shouldn't be allowed at the price its allowed today. Way to easy and risk free. Not allowed at all? It should be but it should be a gamble and the empty freighter killing were seeing everyday should be a rarity only for the very rich.

CCP Fozzie G«£We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-tonG«™ in null sec anomalies. G«£*

Its a given it shouldn't be allowed at the price its allowed today. Way to easy and risk free. Not allowed at all? It should be but it should be a gamble and the empty freighter killing were seeing everyday should be a rarity only for the very rich.

Orchestrating a successful freighter gank has a lot more complexity than just simple F1 smashing when descending on the target. There are Logistics, people management, ship distribution, scouting, scanning, warp-in positioning, bumping, etc. And that does not even involve the additional steps and precautions and adjustments you have to take if AG tries to interfere.

To simply state "ganking is easy and should be more complicated/expensive" is not an argument for anything. It is a cheap attempt to misrepresent a game mechanic in order to make some equally silly "fix" seam valid.

There are tons of really simple game mechanics like mining in this game which deserve a lot more attention if you care to make ISK acquiring harder.

ok, i will not try to argue whether i think sucide ganking or the actions of Bumbing intill your fleet comes along is allowed or not. i am not good with words and PV players will always argue, and CCP wants PVP actions. it is Simple. Have a 100% Vote in both Alpha and Omega accounts. 100% of the accounts for a 30 Day period. even give some type of award for voteing. and when you give the answer of who voted on what. give the answer of how many % voted based on how many total accutally voted, not how many total accounts polay eve. but ask all the accounts during that 30 nday period, ask how many players think succide ganking showed be allowed. Period. put it up to the player base. and since CCP claims that this is a PVP Game. then the PVP should vote and win. I petrsonally dont think Succide Ganking should be allowed. What % of the Total accounts on the record for a 30 day period. How many accounts want succide ganking not to be legal. of course we are going to argue whether it will be total accounts, one per account to be allowed to vote or one per real person (no matter how many accounts per that person) ius allowe3d to vote. that is another arguement all together. and if some one want to try to put this in a better describale way, go for it. i will eve read it again and tell ya if that is what I mean to say.

thanks for reading this, and hopefully it will be treated with seriouness.

Its a given it shouldn't be allowed at the price its allowed today. Way to easy and risk free. Not allowed at all? It should be but it should be a gamble and the empty freighter killing were seeing everyday should be a rarity only for the very rich.

This is so wildly misleading. The benefits that accrue to suicide gankers are due only and totally to the foolishness of players. Balancing the game on players foolishness and imprudence is just simply idiotic.

Oh, and outside of Burn events how many empty freighters are ganked? I mean truly empty? No double wrapped courier packages.

And yes, Burn events are an example of the "very rich" killing any and all freighters. It is subsidized by Goons, one of the richest alliances in game.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

"Some players are foolish and imprudent. They take huge risks, either knowingly or unknowingly. And when it becomes known these players have taken huge risks, other players seek to take advantage of this. This is bad. We need to change the game so that players are protected from their own foolishness and imprudence."--signed every anti-ganker everywhere in game

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

"Some players are foolish and imprudent. They take huge risks, either knowingly or unknowingly. And when it becomes known these players have taken huge risks, other players seek to take advantage of this. This is bad. We need to change the game so that players are protected from their own foolishness and imprudence."--signed every anti-ganker everywhere in game

The verifiable data (zkill) shows the above to be bullshite. The majority of ganks of freighters appear to be empty or near empty. The weapon of choice (stealth bombers) often costing more than the empty or near empty freighter. Not many have plastic wrap.

Disagree go check zkiill.

CCP Fozzie G«£We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-tonG«™ in null sec anomalies. G«£*

The verifiable data (zkill) shows the above to be bullshite. The majority of ganks of freighters appear to be empty or near empty. The weapon of choice (stealth bombers) often costing more than the empty or near empty freighter. Not many have plastic wrap.

Disagree go check zkiill.

Lol ganking a freighter is so easy some are multiboxing it. Again go check zkill but I'm sure you already know this.

There are maybe one or two guys in the entire game who are even able to multibox large numbers of gank chars to kill Freighters. To call something easy just because one guy is doing it successfully is just blatant trolling and has nothing to do with a real argument.

They are also not the ones who kill empty Freighters as you can see quite clearly on zkill. Kusion as an example (there isn't probably any other anyway) almost exclusively hits valuable ships.

The only reason why empty freighters are killed are:- Big events like Burn Jita where people just gank everything for entertainment- Big fleets with many people where you need to provide content to keep fleet cohesion

Those are very good reasons and unavoidable once you realise that EVE is actually played by people and they are here for entertainment. 20 people will not sit in station for hours just to wait for that one big 20bil ISK fish.

Infinity Ziona wrote:

Mining / missioning takes actual risk. They undock in valuable ships at least on their mains and have to deal with the constant threat of 40 year old preteens who appear to think they're IRL actual space pirates and devs who have no idea how to manage the game or decipher pie charts - yeah that big slice with 90% on it that's your potential PvE subscriber base. The 9% is PvP and the 1% or less are wan... Gankers

Highsec is so safe it probably takes less time to research how to make your chosen profession gankproof than it took you to write this troll post. CCP provided all the tools to make mining, missioning and hauling so save you are almost completely untouchable. A good PvE player has absolutely nothing to fear from a ganker, since he can completely avoid them with some simple steps which are pretty obvious and well known.

The only people who get ganked are people who are foolish and imprudent and don't invest any effort at all to protect their ships or belongings. It is not CCPs job or in any interest of the game to protect people who are simply just bad at the game especially since this is a multiplayer sandbox which even promotes and encourages piracy gameplay.

"Some players are foolish and imprudent. They take huge risks, either knowingly or unknowingly. And when it becomes known these players have taken huge risks, other players seek to take advantage of this. This is bad. We need to change the game so that players are protected from their own foolishness and imprudence."--signed every anti-ganker everywhere in game

The verifiable data (zkill) shows the above to be bullshite. The majority of ganks of freighters appear to be empty or near empty. The weapon of choice (stealth bombers) often costing more than the empty or near empty freighter. Not many have plastic wrap.

Disagree go check zkiill.

Show your data. I've gone and looked and there are damn few I can find that truly empty. I found 2 that were truly empty, but 1 was a war dec, the other was not a dec based on the ships used in the kill. I looked at obelisks from March 5-Feb. 28.

I can only conclude you are a liar.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

The verifiable data (zkill) shows the above to be bullshite. The majority of ganks of freighters appear to be empty or near empty. The weapon of choice (stealth bombers) often costing more than the empty or near empty freighter. Not many have plastic wrap.

Disagree go check zkiill.

Lol ganking a freighter is so easy some are multiboxing it. Again go check zkill but I'm sure you already know this.

There are maybe one or two guys in the entire game who are even able to multibox large numbers of gank chars to kill Freighters. To call something easy just because one guy is doing it successfully is just blatant trolling and has nothing to do with a real argument.

They are also not the ones who kill empty Freighters as you can see quite clearly on zkill. Kusion as an example (there isn't probably any other anyway) almost exclusively hits valuable ships.

The only reason why empty freighters are killed are:- Big events like Burn Jita where people just gank everything for entertainment- Big fleets with many people where you need to provide content to keep fleet cohesion

Those are very good reasons and unavoidable once you realise that EVE is actually played by people and they are here for entertainment. 20 people will not sit in station for hours just to wait for that one big 20bil ISK fish.

Infinity Ziona wrote:

Mining / missioning takes actual risk. They undock in valuable ships at least on their mains and have to deal with the constant threat of 40 year old preteens who appear to think they're IRL actual space pirates and devs who have no idea how to manage the game or decipher pie charts - yeah that big slice with 90% on it that's your potential PvE subscriber base. The 9% is PvP and the 1% or less are wan... Gankers

Highsec is so safe it probably takes less time to research how to make your chosen profession gankproof than it took you to write this troll post. CCP provided all the tools to make mining, missioning and hauling so save you are almost completely untouchable. A good PvE player has absolutely nothing to fear from a ganker, since he can completely avoid them with some simple steps which are pretty obvious and well known.

The only people who get ganked are people who are foolish and imprudent and don't invest any effort at all to protect their ships or belongings. It is not CCPs job or in any interest of the game to protect people who are simply just bad at the game especially since this is a multiplayer sandbox which even promotes and encourages piracy gameplay.

So according to you its both extremely hard to set up a gank and only foolish over loaders of cargo get ganked AND at the same time gankers gank empty freighters out of boredom. Also in LaLaLand single pilots multibox freighter ganks not because its easy but because they are amazing and your fleets with 15 to 80 players depending on sec status still find it extremely taxing.

Time to get back to reality. Anything that can be multiboxed by a single player is trivial for a fleet.

CCP Fozzie G«£We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-tonG«™ in null sec anomalies. G«£*

So according to you its both extremely hard to set up a gank and only foolish over loaders of cargo get ganked AND at the same time gankers gank empty freighters out of boredom. Also in LaLaLand single pilots multibox freighter ganks not because its easy but because they are amazing and your fleets with 15 to 80 players depending on sec status still find it extremely taxing.

There are only a couple of people who are even able to multibox ganks on the level that you are able to gank freighters. Also that multiboxing has limits and even Kusion can't gank properly tanked freighters, you need a fleet of people.

It's not really an argument to just call it "easy" just because "someone" is able to do it. Especially if it is pretty obvious that only a handful of player in the entire game is able to do it at all while for everyone else it is completely out of reach.

The reason why you do it anyway is quite clear. It is well known that you are in favour of completely removing non-consensual PvP from Highsec and you somehow think to label the profession as easy without showing any evidence will convince someone it is in need of more nerfs.

Infinity Ziona wrote:

Time to get back to reality. Anything that can be multiboxed by a single player is trivial for a fleet.

Fleet PvP and solo PvP are two completely different things. The game mechanics are the same, but the real challenge of a fleet is not the game mechanics or the difficulty of a certain job, but the people skills of the FC which has to hold it all together and coordinate the other players. This is far from trivial and only a hand full of people are really good at it.

So according to you its both extremely hard to set up a gank and only foolish over loaders of cargo get ganked AND at the same time gankers gank empty freighters out of boredom. Also in LaLaLand single pilots multibox freighter ganks not because its easy but because they are amazing and your fleets with 15 to 80 players depending on sec status still find it extremely taxing.

Time to get back to reality. Anything that can be multiboxed by a single player is trivial for a fleet.

What empty freighters? Aside from Burn events where are we seeing this? You keep saying this, but I don't see much evidence of it.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

Eve has lost over 20 thousand players in the years I have played this game, and it is sad to see.The player base continues to tell CCP that the one thing that drives players away the most is CCP continuing to allow players to suicide kill other players in empire space, with little to no ramifications for their actions, while the players they kill take huge losses.

No one will continue to play under such circumstances, and the drop in population shows it.

Take CCPs position allowing suicide ganking in empire to continue to it's natural conclusion; no one will bother to contribute to the economy because it would just be destroyed, and everyone would sit around and suicide gank each other until there is nothing left.

All CCP has to do is disable people from being able to fire on each other in empire space without a war dec. Very simple, they already have the mechanic in the game - bombs don't work in empire, capitals can't jump to empire, etc. CCP, if you want to attract people to play this game, create a safe space for people to learn and play in safety, and then move out to null sec or take part in war decs when they are ready.

Dust514 is shutting down, your Valkyrie product is not going to have a good reputation either, when your preceeding product is hated by most of the gaming community.

Will the Council try to get across to CCP that the on going state of Eve-Online is glorified gang warfare, disgusting to all civilized people, and must change as outlined above, to continue to survive.

Times have changed, Eve-Online has to change to, or die.

Hmm, I find it a bit too drastic. It would effectively make Empire space (I am assuming from 1.0 to 0.1 here) consensual PvP... it would be EVE's Trammel in a way...

The idea has some merit, in that it has worked in some other games, but still, I prefer deterrence and self-policing than outright prevention...

Of course this solution here would be the easiest to implement for CCP.

I do agree that the "slap in the face" mechanics and the weak Security system in place is a deterrent to players playing the game at this time. And this situation needs to be turned around for sure..if anyone really cares about EVE that is...

Eve has lost over 20 thousand players in the years I have played this game, and it is sad to see.The player base continues to tell CCP that the one thing that drives players away the most is CCP continuing to allow players to suicide kill other players in empire space, with little to no ramifications for their actions, while the players they kill take huge losses.

No one will continue to play under such circumstances, and the drop in population shows it.

Take CCPs position allowing suicide ganking in empire to continue to it's natural conclusion; no one will bother to contribute to the economy because it would just be destroyed, and everyone would sit around and suicide gank each other until there is nothing left.

All CCP has to do is disable people from being able to fire on each other in empire space without a war dec. Very simple, they already have the mechanic in the game - bombs don't work in empire, capitals can't jump to empire, etc. CCP, if you want to attract people to play this game, create a safe space for people to learn and play in safety, and then move out to null sec or take part in war decs when they are ready.

Dust514 is shutting down, your Valkyrie product is not going to have a good reputation either, when your preceeding product is hated by most of the gaming community.

Will the Council try to get across to CCP that the on going state of Eve-Online is glorified gang warfare, disgusting to all civilized people, and must change as outlined above, to continue to survive.

Times have changed, Eve-Online has to change to, or die.

Hmm, I find it a bit too drastic. It would effectively make Empire space (I am assuming from 1.0 to 0.1 here) consensual PvP... it would be EVE's Trammel in a way...

The idea has some merit, in that it has worked in some other games, but still, I prefer deterrence and self-policing than outright prevention...

Of course this solution here would be the easiest to implement for CCP.

I do agree that the "slap in the face" mechanics and the weak Security system in place is a deterrent to players playing the game at this time. And this situation needs to be turned around for sure..if anyone really cares about EVE that is...

How much stuff moves around HS vs. is ganked or killed in a wardc? How many players move around HS vs. being ganked or killed in a wardec?

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

Eve has lost over 20 thousand players in the years I have played this game, and it is sad to see.The player base continues to tell CCP that the one thing that drives players away the most is CCP continuing to allow players to suicide kill other players in empire space, with little to no ramifications for their actions, while the players they kill take huge losses.

No one will continue to play under such circumstances, and the drop in population shows it.

Take CCPs position allowing suicide ganking in empire to continue to it's natural conclusion; no one will bother to contribute to the economy because it would just be destroyed, and everyone would sit around and suicide gank each other until there is nothing left.

All CCP has to do is disable people from being able to fire on each other in empire space without a war dec. Very simple, they already have the mechanic in the game - bombs don't work in empire, capitals can't jump to empire, etc. CCP, if you want to attract people to play this game, create a safe space for people to learn and play in safety, and then move out to null sec or take part in war decs when they are ready.

Dust514 is shutting down, your Valkyrie product is not going to have a good reputation either, when your preceeding product is hated by most of the gaming community.

Will the Council try to get across to CCP that the on going state of Eve-Online is glorified gang warfare, disgusting to all civilized people, and must change as outlined above, to continue to survive.

Times have changed, Eve-Online has to change to, or die.

Hmm, I find it a bit too drastic. It would effectively make Empire space (I am assuming from 1.0 to 0.1 here) consensual PvP... it would be EVE's Trammel in a way...

The idea has some merit, in that it has worked in some other games, but still, I prefer deterrence and self-policing than outright prevention...

Of course this solution here would be the easiest to implement for CCP.

I do agree that the "slap in the face" mechanics and the weak Security system in place is a deterrent to players playing the game at this time. And this situation needs to be turned around for sure..if anyone really cares about EVE that is...

How much stuff moves around HS vs. is ganked or killed in a wardc? How many players move around HS vs. being ganked or killed in a wardec?

How much stuff moves around HS vs. is ganked or killed in a wardc? How many players move around HS vs. being ganked or killed in a wardec?

Not sure I understand your question. What do you mean?

Most players move around HS unmolested. Most haulers move around HS unmolested. In fact, I'd say tens of trillions move around for every trillion that died in a gank or a war dec over the course of a month. That is HS PvP is not some overwhelming ubiquitous thing that is stifling game play.

But we see or hear about those who get killed because we keep track of them via killboards like zkill. So you are reacting to what you see, but ignoring what you can't see (or see so easily). Go sit in Uedama and watch how many freighters go through without a problem. Do it for an hour. My guess is you'll be surprised.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

How much stuff moves around HS vs. is ganked or killed in a wardc? How many players move around HS vs. being ganked or killed in a wardec?

Not sure I understand your question. What do you mean?

Most players move around HS unmolested. Most haulers move around HS unmolested. In fact, I'd say tens of trillions move around for every trillion that died in a gank or a war dec over the course of a month. That is HS PvP is not some overwhelming ubiquitous thing that is stifling game play.

But we see or hear about those who get killed because we keep track of them via killboards like zkill. So you are reacting to what you see, but ignoring what you can't see (or see so easily). Go sit in Uedama and watch how many freighters go through without a problem. Do it for an hour. My guess is you'll be surprised.

I see, thanks for explaining so it is a statistical point of view you are expressing.

Yet there is a psychological effect here to consider. This is no different than someone getting attacked by a shark in a crowded beach. Many people will be deterred from going to that beach thereafter anyways regardless of the statistics.

I mean, if I come and tell yo there is a great white that killed someone here yesterday, would you go swimming even if you know that it is the only attack in the past 6 months?

Rationally and emotionally would you?

And that is just one aspect of all this.

the second question to ask, is why is it wrong that several haulers make it past in Uedana?

I mean, do you start killing truckers in the street because too many trucks get to pass by every day? You would be considered a murderer and a criminal if you did that.

This kind of behaviour is what is loathed.

Everyone can understand on the other hand Warfare.You want to prevent a competitor corp from making their deliveries and hamper them in the market, that is why Wars are there, Make war and fight it out ambush their Haulers etc etc.

But the average new developing player is not after conquering the market, cornering the market or competing with industrial copr's profits. The average player that comes to play EVE is a Sci-Fi enthusiast, seeking an experience in Space, to explore it, to trade in it to mine in it, not necessarily for grand profit but for the enjoyment of doing these activities. Yes there are people who enjoy mining as weird as that may sound to some. And not everyone comes to play eve with the intent to do combat and murder other people's character and pop other people's ships. Not everyone is aggressive like that or enjoys to be aggressive towards other players. And these people are shunned out of the game.

And It is human nature to want safety too. This is why we invented laws and peace enforcement. If we were all fine in living every day looking behind our shoulders in an anarchy we would not have laws, ethics, human rights and morals. We would all live like animals, eat or be eaten.

And it matters not if this is a game, the feeling of constant fear is not enjoyable to many people, who instead would just move on to play something else.

This is why it would be good, I think, that fear is considerably reduced from Empire space, let people have fun in it let people come out from it on their own accord according to their own realisations and thrill.

There is nothing wrong with the game having a large Empire population which is enjoying itself according to what is enjoyable to it.

How much stuff moves around HS vs. is ganked or killed in a wardc? How many players move around HS vs. being ganked or killed in a wardec?

Not sure I understand your question. What do you mean?

Most players move around HS unmolested. Most haulers move around HS unmolested. In fact, I'd say tens of trillions move around for every trillion that died in a gank or a war dec over the course of a month. That is HS PvP is not some overwhelming ubiquitous thing that is stifling game play.

But we see or hear about those who get killed because we keep track of them via killboards like zkill. So you are reacting to what you see, but ignoring what you can't see (or see so easily). Go sit in Uedama and watch how many freighters go through without a problem. Do it for an hour. My guess is you'll be surprised.

I see, thanks for explaining so it is a statistical point of view you are expressing.

Yet there is a psychological effect here to consider. This is no different than someone getting attacked by a shark in a crowded beach. Many people will be deterred from going to that beach thereafter anyways regardless of the statistics.

I mean, if I come and tell yo there is a great white that killed someone here yesterday, would you go swimming even if you know that it is the only attack in the past 6 months?

Rationally and emotionally would you?

And that is just one aspect of all this.

the second question to ask, is why is it wrong that several haulers make it past in Uedana?

I mean, do you start killing truckers in the street because too many trucks get to pass by every day? You would be considered a murderer and a criminal if you did that.

This kind of behaviour is what is loathed.

Everyone can understand on the other hand Warfare.You want to prevent a competitor corp from making their deliveries and hamper them in the market, that is why Wars are there, Make war and fight it out ambush their Haulers etc etc.

But the average new developing player is not after conquering the market, cornering the market or competing with industrial copr's profits. The average player that comes to play EVE is a Sci-Fi enthusiast, seeking an experience in Space, to explore it, to trade in it to mine in it, not necessarily for grand profit but for the enjoyment of doing these activities. Yes there are people who enjoy mining as weird as that may sound to some. And not everyone comes to play eve with the intent to do combat and murder other people's character and pop other people's ships. Not everyone is aggressive like that or enjoys to be aggressive towards other players. And these people are shunned out of the game.

And It is human nature to want safety too. This is why we invented laws and peace enforcement. If we were all fine in living every day looking behind our shoulders in an anarchy we would not have laws, ethics, human rights and morals. We would all live like animals, eat or be eaten.

And it matters not if this is a game, the feeling of constant fear is not enjoyable to many people, who instead would just move on to play something else.

This is why it would be good, I think, that fear is considerably reduced from Empire space, let people have fun in it let people come out from it on their own accord according to their own realisations and thrill.

There is nothing wrong with the game having a large Empire population which is enjoying itself according to what is enjoyable to it.

Don't you think?

The shark analogy is interesting in that it depends on the behavior of the shark. If it sticks around and is territorial no. That would be foolish and imprudent....and most people who are ganked are imprudent and foolish.

Similarly if you undock your freighter and there is a war dec you are being very imprudent and foolish.

Using your analogy not only was there a shark attack...you can still see the shark swimming around and yet go in the water anyways.

You must keep in mind that risk is not something that the game comes along and imposes on you out of the blue. Chances are if you find yourself in a very risky situation it is because you did something to "bring" that risk down on you. If you look at freighter suicide ganks (i.e. excluding war decs) for example most of them have way too much cargo value. Even the ones that have low cargo value you should check to see if they have a double wrapped courier package. Those often get ganked based on the premise: if they double wrapped it, it must be valuable. In other words, these players took actions that increased their risk.

Edit:

The takeaway is this: be prudent and your risk of a suicide gank is actually quite small. In a war dec again the idea is prudence. Do not undock in your marauder or whatever expensive ship you have. In times of war dec it is even more important to follow EVE's number one rule: do not fly anything you cannot afford to lose.

So if you are prudent and learn the game mechanics you'll be quite safe in HS. You won't be 100% safe. But all you have to do is be faster than the other guy when the bear is chasing you. The new player will have to learn this and the best way is by doing it...learning by doing. Trial and error...and flying ships you can afford to replace.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

COPYRIGHT NOTICEEVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.